We Have To Do Something
The future of the West looks grim and the feds' new antisemitism campaign is set to lock it in. We aren't going to vote our way out of this, but what else can we do? I offer a suggestion below.
In 1998, I founded a non-profit in New York City whose mission statement was “to drag immigration into the center of public debate where an issue of its importance belongs, and de-link it from race so we can talk about it in a way suitable to a mature democracy.” The organization’s policy goal was an “immigration timeout.”
I understood at the outset that my activism would be controversial, but I assumed it would be because of the racial aspect of mass immigration—i.e., because of the racial difference between the majority of Americans and the majority of immigrants. The public discourse on race was haywire, of course, and that would be the source of the controversy, I thought. But, there were many good non-racial reasons to drastically reduce immigration (for example, less immigration puts upward pressure on the wages of low and middle income Americans of all races) and if the immigration debate could be shifted off race (and onto income inequality, say), it would allow for an immigration policy more generally beneficial to all Americans.
This is not to say I believed there wasn’t an important racial component to consider in devising immigration policy, there certainly was. Indeed, race is the most consequential component, but, my thinking went, to the extent race was a part of the public debate in the United States, a more responsible, less destructive immigration policy would be harder to achieve. For that reason, my organization, called ProjectUSA, never mentioned race. The closest we ever came to addressing the racial component of mass immigration was in our website’s Top Ten Reasons for an Immigration Time-Out. One of those reasons listed was that current policy, by neglecting to follow the historical wave pattern of immigration—large influxes of immigrants, then a lull to allow for assimilation—was risking the political balkanization of the United States.
But I was clueless concerning the powerful force for whom massive non-white immigration into the United States is a political non-negotiable—the single most important domestic policy issue by far. I didn’t understand yet that the reason for this unwavering and absolute political support was precisely for immigration’s destructive power. New York City is the global stronghold of that powerful force, and the ferocity of the response to my group’s activist effort, which raised money to put up billboards displaying immigration facts, stunned me.
Despite the care we took to avoid any mention of race, I was attacked as a “racist.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published an article in October, 2000, in which I was depicted as having “made a name for [myself] putting up racist billboards. One in New York featured a white boy and the words ‘Immigration is doubling US population in our lifetimes.’” The author, Heidi Beirich, was describing the billboard pictured above. While “Nelsen is careful to avoid any mention of race,” she continued, and claims he is not racist, but the ProjectUSA website suggests race is at the heart of his concerns. Then she cited the warning about balkanization mentioned above.
A New York State assemblyman from Brooklyn named Dov Hikind, who had been an outspoken follower of Rabbi Meir Kahane, a religious extremist who taught that blacks and Arabs are subhuman animals and whose political organization was so toxic even Israel banned it as too extreme, penned an editorial for The Forward, the nation’s largest Jewish publication, denouncing “the putrid stench of Nelsen’s racism.”
The New York City Council, in a 43-2 vote, condemned ProjectUSA and, in the press conference after the vote, I was publicly compared to a self-described neo-Nazi who had murdered several children at a Jewish day care center in Los Angeles the day before.
It was nuts.
I had become interested in the immigration issue when, after a two-year stint teaching English to university students in China, I return to the United States and took up residence in New York City. It had been six years since I had been in New York and I was struck by the number of Asians I saw on the streets. Had there really been such a drastic increase in just six years in the number of Asians in New York as it seemed? Or was I only more Asian-aware having just returned from living in China?
Curious, I began to research online and was shocked at what I discovered. The magnitude of immigration into the United States was far beyond anything I had suspected. Moreover, I knew the vast majority of Americans were as ignorant as I. Worse, there was an unspoken taboo in public discourse against anything less than enthusiastic approval of mass immigration, thereby ensuring Americans would remain ignorant and helpless in the face of the irreversible changes being foisted on the country—changes the consequences of which were completely unpredictable.
At the time, I still had a very Tocquevillian view of American participatory democracy, so my effort to raise public awareness on an important issue was, in my mind, an act of civic-mindedness. Our dangerous immigration policy was a result, I thought, of the inherent flaw in democratic nations de Tocqueville pointed out—capable of learning only from experience. My naivete must have been apparent in the interviews I gave to the press, because a person of some influence, who lived in New York, made it a point personally to put into my hands a book by Kevin MacDonald called Culture of Critique (available for purchase here, but not on Amazon).
Culture of Critique lays out in undeniable detail the overwhelming Jewish role in the racial transformation of the United States through immigration policy. For me, the book was transformative. I now understood the viciousness of the attacks on our effort—an effort that, in a healthy society, would be seen as laudable. There was nothing remotely sincere about the substance of the attacks. They were made simply for the political purpose of ensuring the immigration onslaught continues to its destructive end. And on the route to that end, is the balkanization our website warned about.
MacDonald believes that balkanization will compel white ethnic cohesion:
The importance of group-based competition cannot be overstated. I believe it is highly unlikely that Western societies based on individualism and democracy can long survive the legitimization of competition between impermeable groups in which group membership is determined by ethnicity. The discussion in Separation and Its Discontents (Chs. 3–5) strongly suggests that ultimately group strategies are met by group strategies, and that societies become organized around cohesive, mutually exclusionary groups. Indeed, the recent multicultural movement may be viewed as tending toward a profoundly non-Western form of social organization that has historically been much more typical of Middle Eastern segmentary societies centered around discrete homogeneous groups. However, unlike in the multicultural ideal, in these societies there are pronounced relations of dominance and subordination. Whereas democracy appears to be quite foreign to such segmentary societies, Western societies, uniquely among the stratified societies of the world, have developed individualistic democratic and republican political institutions. Moreover, major examples of Western collectivism, including German National Socialism and Iberian Catholicism during the period of the Inquisition, have been characterized by intense anti-Semitism.
There is thus a significant possibility that individualistic societies are unlikely to survive the intra-societal group-based competition that has become increasingly common and intellectually respectable in the United States. I believe that in the United States we are presently heading down a volatile path—a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves. Although ethnocentric beliefs and behavior are viewed as morally and intellectually legitimate only among ethnic minorities in the United States, the theory and the data presented in Separation and Its Discontents indicate that the development of greater ethnocentrism among European-derived peoples is a likely result of present trends.1
If only Russians had awakened 25 years earlier, wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 200 Years Together, they could have prevented the Bolshevik destruction of historical Russia, the dispossession of its people, and the murder of 66 million Russian Christians. And that is the great question the West faces today. Will we wake up in time? There is an awakening in progress now, thanks to the Internet, but the new antisemitism campaign the Biden regime rolled out in May is designed to shut that awakening down through a drastic increase in online censorship both here in the US and, through pressure on multinational tech companies, in every Western country. If we are to have a hope of avoiding Russia’s fate, that campaign has to be derailed.
But how?
One thing I learned from my experience with ProjectUSA was that there is something particularly powerful about the public display of forbidden truth. It can’t be ignored. It demands a response and if there is one thing the neo-Bolsheviks don’t want to engage with, it’s facts. (There is a reason that the Bolsheviks in Russia made the penalty for posting flyers mandatory execution on the spot.) Truth is their enemy, and our ally.
So imagine:
In every major American city with which I’m familiar, there are large areas of blight. Properties in these areas can be had for next to nothing. Major surface street traffic corridors run through these areas. Imagine the uproar if properties were purchased in cities across the United States with the same slogan painted on each and positioned so that people waiting at red lights would have time to digest the magic fact:
When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917, they razed thousands of churches but left the synagogues untouched. Then they murdered 66 million Russian Christians.
We have to do something. Anyone have a better suggestion?
Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald, Ch. 8, THE MULTICULTURAL DYSTOPIA: UNLEASHING GROUP-BASED COMPETITION. pp. 500-501